Posted on 02/14/2005 1:25:43 PM PST by sauerkraut
There's the problem ... these bishops need to be removed from office, and Godly men installed in their place.
Bzzt!!!! False hidden assumption in a loaded question alert!!!
Who says it isn't as widespread a problem among the protestants? Ample documentation has been provided on this very forum that the problem is at least as bad there ... just not as well publicised.
Paul explains the question of celibacy vs. marraige to him from the church in Corinth in I Corinthians, Chapter 7.
Your logic is flawed on celibacy. If the culprit was celibacy why then were homosexual acts the problem?
Celibacy is a gift.
As I said in reponse to another thread
[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1342574/posts
regarding attacks of "demons" on the church:
The problem is also with the huge numbers of persons masquerading as Christians whose whole mission is to desecrate the church and denigrate and cast doubt on the Word of God. Whether demons or merely demon-inspired, they have caused severe damage to the Catholic Church (pedophiles), the Anglican Communion and other Protestant denominations (revisionists and others who deny Jesus and the Scriptures and promote practices directly contrary to what God has required).
Their mission is the same as the serpent in the Garden of Eden, to cast doubt on God's commandments ("did God really say? . . .").
And as a validation of this, please refer to
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1342256/posts
for this conversation between ECUSA bishop Stacy Sauls and a parishioner:
GAFFNEY: Do you believe the Bible is the inspired word of God?
SAULS: I believe the Bible is a book of poetry with a lot of history in it. I believe the Prayer Book has all that one needs for salvation.
GAFFNEY: Do you believe there is a Satan?
SAULS: Not metaphorically speaking, no. (He was laughing at me.)
GAFFNEY: Do you believe in the principalities and powers?
SAULS: (Laughing at Gaffney, and with a sneer said), I'll give you that one!
GAFFNEY: Do you believe in heaven and hell?
SAULS: I believe that an all loving God would never send anyone to hell for eternity. I believe he works it out in the end for everyone.
WOW I've never heard anything like that from a "Godly" man, that's scarey.
Yeah, Satan would never succeed with Godly men.
The College of Bishops has always had its problems:
"The Pope orders, the cardinals do not obey, and the people do as they please"
- Benedict XIV
The laws of the Church are in confusion, we have as bishops men who have no fear of God rushing to higher and exalted offices…The result is that the worse a man blasphemes, the fitter people think he is to become a bishop. There is no precise knowledge of canons, there is complete immunity in sinning; for when men have been placed in office by the favor of men they are obliged to continue returning favors by indulging the offenders.
St. Basil the Great
"Who says it isn't as widespread a problem among the protestants? Ample documentation has been provided on this very forum that the problem is at least as bad there ... just not as well publicised."
OK. Also, the several HIGH profile cases involving Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, et al. Those at least involved adult women, but were sex scandals nonetheless.
Here's a better question then: Why do the pedophilic priest scandals get more coverage?
"Paul explains the question of celibacy vs. marraige to him from the church in Corinth in I Corinthians, Chapter 7."
Thank you very much!! I'll familiarize myself with that before making anymore incorrect Bible posts!!
"Your logic is flawed on celibacy. If the culprit was celibacy why then were homosexual acts the problem? "
Your point is valid and well-taken. Sorry - I'm just so disgusted about this priestly-pedophilia scandal and wish something real and tangible would be done to prevent it. It's disgraceful - not to the FAITH of Catholicism, but to the Vatican, as a political issue.
The Catholic Church priest scandal is better explained with the tools of social science:
Some people are sick; they're either born this way or molested into it. They want to have sex with kids. Some of these people will seek out kids to molest, some won't.
Some will become priests because they think God will cure them. These are the really stupid ones. When God doesn't cure them (He never cures anyone), they despair, and they'll molest altar boys or whatever.
You don't need Satan to explain their behavior, or the behavior of their superiors: it was more convenient for the Church Hierarchy to shuffle the molesters around than to admit publicly to the sin. These orders went all the way up to the Vatican (it's crazy to believe that all over the world, Catholic bishops did the same exact thing, without any direction from above). The Bishops justified hiding the molesters on the grounds that 1) scandal would be bad for the Church, they wouldn't have as many followers and be able to collect as much money from churchgoers and 2) they thought the priests really wanted to not sin any more, and that God might cure them if they prayed hard enough.
This isn't to say that Catholicism is or was inherently bad. But the Church didn't face enough scrutiny over its actions. So it got lazy. If the Church was afraid that a bunch of hard-nosed reporters would have uncovered the priest scandal, maybe the bishops wouldn't have protected the predators in the first place. It's bad to show too much respect to any institution. This isn't to say that you Catholics can't love your Church, just that you should recognize the value of having people who will scrutinize the Church.
I don't mean to nag you on several threads, but your remark about the Church being in need of scrutiny caught my attention.
You are exactly right about that latter point. This is why the Inquisition existed and this is we are not going to get out of this mess unless a real Holy Inquisition is reinstituted in the United States. But you are wrong in thinking that Catholic faithful resist that. I have seen nothing but righteous anger at the pederast priests coming from the laity. It is the behavior of some, even most, bishops and cardinals that is problematic.
I am not sure that the "tools of social science" explanation, -- surely revealing of some truth if not of the whole truth -- cannot be summarized in one word, -- Satan. That is because corruption, -- spiritual, mental or physical, -- is work of Satan. It is not entirely correct to call Satan supernatural, since corruption is a naturally observable phenomenon. It is however necessary to look into the spiritual content of a behavior whether it is natural or innatural. Recognizing the devil's work for what it is is the first step toward redemption. Labeling sexual predation as natural while forgetting its satanic source has a connotation of resigning to its existence, and this is why scientific worldview is harmful.
I disagree. First, I don't think Satan has a hand in it, and second, just because something is natural doesn't mean we should accept it.
It's natural for your leg not to grow back if it gets cut off, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make a prosthetic.
If people naturally suffer from depression, we should offer the medication and therapy they need to get their lives back on track.
Etc. etc.
Whether or not something is "natural" has nothing to do with whether we should preserve it or destroy it.
If it's harmful to the human condition, and the alternative is better, destroy it! Whether someone is a child-rapist because he was naturally born that way or because he was fondled when he was eight, if he's out trying to rape children he's evil and must be stopped.
The degree to which Satan has a hand in that evil doesn't change at all how we should respond to that evil.
Also, it is a logical fallacy to believe that a sinful mindset cannot be "natural" just because you don't like the consequences of such a thing being true.
Where did I say that a 'sinful mindset cannot be "natural"'?
You are correct that whether or not a behavior is natural has nothing to do with its morality. On this we both agree. So, we must look beyond nature into something that is the domain of morals. There, I think, the atheists speak of the devil even when they studiously avoid the word.
bttt
You got off to a really good start by calling the author a "moron." I take it you mean it about me as well. I'll wait for the apology, since the rules do state no personal attacks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.